Created attachment 268492 [details] [PATCH] devel/meson-python: Update to 0.19.0
poudriere-testport devel/meson: 15_0-amd64-release: Pass main-amd64-default: Pass
s/meson/meson-python/
Comment on attachment 268492 [details] [PATCH] devel/meson-python: Update to 0.19.0 Please do not change the sorting of the depends lines despite what the linters output, I intentionally ordered them to match pyproject.toml. Also meson itself is still a build dependency.
I will take it from here, since every consumer needs to be checked at least for version pinning and whatnot.
(In reply to Charlie Li from comment #4) The this should be documented in the Makefile to make it clear for future contributors.
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #6) Why keep making personal allowances? Is that meant to encourage participation? It certainly reeks of gatekeeping (Raven Ports makes efforts to avoid this, can you guess what project influenced that policy?). If Python need an exception to the policies codified in the Port Tools, then that exception should be codified in those tools. It is a fabricated problem that exists in the fancy of the Maintainer. Vi-chords, and Emacs-appendage-contortions make lite work of sorting lines of text. Really, what an absurd criticism to have...while poudriere is busy testing changes, I can use my time.....maybe for running a Port thru the linters....maybe? No, I will just sit and stare at the screen waiting for the compilation to finish. Genius! How is the aging volunteer demographic going....
(In reply to Alastair Hogge from comment #7) I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to tell me. My comment was solely meant to document the fact that the current sort order is on purpose. No more, no less.
(In reply to Michael Osipov from comment #8) > My comment was solely meant to document the fact that the current sort order is on purpose Whose purpose? Many maintainers already neglect, or make up excuses, to avoid following the recommendations in the Porter's Handbook. Why stop at devel/meson-python for codifying the personal preferences of one Maintainer? This is not about an informational Makefile comment explaining why some non-standard linker flag is needed, or why some obscure bootstrapping process has to happen in a particular sequence.